Showing posts with label privilege. Show all posts
Showing posts with label privilege. Show all posts

4/30/2014

So you think you "experienced rapeculture" on the bus?

Some guy bothered you trying to get your attention and the fact that the crowd of people didn't rescue you from arguing with him means "rapeculture"?

I've seen a few rants to that effect lately and it's total bullshit.



Point #1:

People don't like to set themselves apart from the group, especially when it involves conflict or inconvenience.

How often do people go out of their way to get involved in any argument between two strangers?  How often do you?  When two people are screaming at each other about one of them taking the spot the other wanted in a parking lot, how likely is it that people are going to head away so they don't have to deal with it, rather than heading toward the noise to see if they can help?  How often do you see youtube videos where instead of stopping to help somebody getting their ass kicked, people stop to record it instead?  How often do you see people stranded on the side of the road for long periods of time while hundreds of cars pass by, simply because nobody stops to help?  Have you not heard of cases where somebody preventably died from an injury, hear attack, etc. while people were crowded around them, simply because nobody bothered to call 911?

Are people just not aware of the concept of "mob mentality" anymore?  People generally don't want to be the first person to assert themself and get involved in any case where there's a group doing nothing.  That's just the way it is with everything.  When you're yelling at somebody on a crowded bus, don't be surprised when nobody wants to stick their neck out by both asserting themself from the crowd and white-knighting for you.  It's not "rapeculture" that keeps them from doing it.  It's general human social nature.

It is the ultimate narcisism to see people not treating your issue any differently from every other issue simply because it is important to you and you interpret that as "a unique systemic form of oppression."

That's not "rapeculture." That's rape hysteria.

Point #2:

There is no guarantee that sticking your neck out for somebody else will be appreciated.

I've more than once had to put myself in danger to protect somebody and I can tell you, it's a crap shoot whether the person you're trying to help will end up being friend or foe based on your involvement.  Try to break up a fight between two people and they could both just end up fighting you, instead of each other.  There was a particular incident that stands out for me where a single guy, too drunk to stand reliably was about to get jumped by 6 larger, more coordinated guys who thought he was slinging ethnic slurs at them.  I physically had to place myself in front of him and fend off/absorb the brunt of their aggression so they didn't literally beat him to death.  After I'd called the police and they flat out refused to show up or even file a report on the incident (is that "hatecrimeculture"?) the guy who was only still breathing due to my interference on his behalf used that very breath to call me "asshole."

Put yourself first, get called "rape supporter" for not doing anything.  Put the "victim" first, maybe get called a rapist for your trouble.

That's not "rapeculture."  That's rape hysteria.

Point #3:

You were not being raped.

I know, it's super-duper scary with all the hysteria about rape these days, to have a man try to actually get your attention and -gasp- interact with you in some way.  Still, some dude bothering you on a crowded bus is not the same thing as him raping you.  Those people you think were participating in "rapeculture" probably could just see you were not in serious danger by the fact that:

a. you were sitting there arguing with him, instead of trying to get away from him
b. he was not physically attacking you
c. you were in a public setting with other people available to help if things went really bad
d. you were not asking for help from anybody else

If you want to require people to automatically rush to the aid of the damsel in (minor) distress every time some man says something she finds unpleasant, then I suggest you start a social movement to turn the clock back to before "equality" was a goal, because that's the "oppressive" way things used to be.  Men used to duel over stupid shit like "offending a lady."  If, however, you want to be taken seriously as a capable adult human, equal to men, you're going to have to "man up" and fight your own "battles" (to use the term loosely) on occasion.

Throwing a tantrum, because nobody stepped in to keep you from being talked to in a public setting isn't "equality."  That's "sense of entitlement."

And people not going out of their way to rescue you from arguing with somebody isn't "rapeculture."  The fact that you are calling it "rapeculture" is just rape hysteria.

8/18/2013

Re: If You're A Dude On The Internet, You NEED To See This Video

http://www.upworthy.com/nailed-it-if-youre-a-dude-on-the-internet-you-need-to-see-this-video

I'm going to only criticize the video itself, because the video itself and the "ill doctrine" this guy spews out is the topic and not "feminism/MRM is/isn't..." or "men/women are/aren't" etc.  Again, I'm going to be using the list of prejudices from the "What Is Prejudice?" reference page which can be found on the right up there.

Let's break this down from a non gender-fanatical perspective:

Page Title:
If You're A Dude On The Internet, You NEED To See This Video
Assuming "dude" is being used as the slang label for "male" (also supported by the context provided by the video) this is clearly separation of and targeting people by gender.

Blatant prejudice - Right in the title of the page.
UT-1,2

From the video:
Recently, she set up a kickstarter page for a new project looking at the representation of women in video games...
a whole bunch of gamer dudes decided, even though they haven't heard what her opinion is yet, that the mere idea of this woman presuming to form an opinion about them...
Well, which is it?  Is this a judgement about the representation of women in video games, or a generalization about men who play video games? (which would be UPJ-1,2,3,4,5 and UGJ-1,3,4,5 by the way)

Those are two different subjects.  A representation of a demographic and an actual demographic are not the same thing.  One of them is a generalization - a stereotypical facade, while one is made up of actual living, breathing, individual people.  One of them is frequently possible to judge as a whole, while one simply can not be without turning it into the other.  So, is she attempting to judge the representation of women in video games, or make a generalization about male gamers?  Apparently, the answer to this question is unclear at the moment.
...the private army of sexist dudes...
Gendered cooperative sexism!
Yeah, I've heard the "conspiracy" claim before and I'm still not convinced that either gender is conspiring to keep the other down, regardless of how many times it's suggested.  There is most likely some individuals from all genders involved in such things, but I have yet to see any actual evidence that there is a mass organizational effort behind any of it.
UPJ-1,2,4,5, UPR-1,2,4,5, UGJ-1,4,5 and UGR-1,3,4,5
...has only succeeded in proving her right...
Quoted again from previous:
...even though they haven't heard what her opinion is yet...
Wait - can they prove something right that hasn't been said yet, or is the ultimate conclusion this woman will reach predictable enough that they might have figured out what it will likely be, as you apparently have, and they are reacting to that?

You can't criticize others for making assumptions and then make the same assumptions yourself to criticize them again.  The rules don't change depending on which side you argue for.
UT-1,2
...raises a whole bunch of questions about why this happens so often and why so many dudes think it's OK to persecute and harass and abuse women online.
I would assume, for the same reasons that so many men think it's OK to persecute and harass and abuse other men online so often, or for the same reasons that so many women think it's OK to persecute and harass and abuse men online so often, or for the same reasons that so many women think it's OK to persecute and harass and abuse other women online so often.  Sexism doesn't exist in only one direction and bullying in general is a rainbow of different colors of hate.  Even though this incident is possibly statistically gender-weighted in this regard, he is broadening the scope to include everything by referencing how often and online in general, so it's very sexist of him to suggest that "dudes" in general are the problem, instead of certain people.
UGJ-1,2,4,5 and UGR-1,2,3,5
A lot of these dudes...will tell you...that they don't really hate women - that they just think it's funny to treat women as if they hate them...first of all, you're lying to yourself...
I'm not familiar with his psychological credentials.  Is he adequately qualified to make an assessment about the inner workings of the minds of internet bullies?
UPJ-1,2,4,5 and UGJ-1,2,4,5
Only somebody who hates women and sees them as less than human would think that's a meaningful distinction.
Again, I'm not familiar with his psychological credentials.  Is he adequately qualified to make an assessment about the inner workings of the minds of internet bullies?
UPJ-1,2,4,5 and UGJ-1,2,4,5

Also, did he observe this reaction from people actually involved in this incident, or is he projecting this reaction on to them based on different experiences he has had and his own emotional reaction to this particular incident?
UPJ-1,2,4,5 and UGJ-2,4
And I don't know what I could say that would get through to someone that is so invested in detaching from their own humanity...
The person who is dehumanizing "dudes" with condescending labels and blatantly prejudicial accusations is also claiming that those people having the same type of view of women is actually them being "invested in detaching from their own humanity?"
UT-1 and UAS-4
...so I'm just going to think about that and come back to it.
Yeah...me too.
But for now I'm just going to say to everyone else and especially my fellow dudes that when you see something like that going on, you and by "you" I mean "we" have an obligation to speak out against it more often.
UPR-1,2, UGR-1,2,3, UT-1,2 and UAS-4

However, I agree that people should call out bullshit, which is why I make statements like this as well as this.
It's really not cool for us to just shrug our shoulders...
I agree.  Apathy about prejudice is "really not cool."  That includes the blatant prejudice this guy displays, which is why I'm "speaking out against it."
And it's really not OK for you to jump into somebody's discussion of this harassment and derail it with a bunch of comments about (mocking voice ->) "well sure, harassment is bad, but men are discriminated against too. Feminists are always makin' somethin' out of nothing and bababababa."
In the case of discussing a single instance of harassment without prejudicial themes, it would be very impolite to jump in and start discussing gender issues, yes.  However, if the tone of the "harassment" discussion is as prejudiced and offensive as the accusations and mocking present in this video, you can not fault people for attempting to defend themselves against the dehumanizing and belittling intent behind it, because
...when you see something like that going on, you and by "you" I mean "we" have an obligation to speak out against it more often.
Right?
...if you need to show off your debating skills and make fetch happen with the misandry thing...
"The misandry thing?"  You mean, like, suggesting men are ignorant about gender issues, as with the title of the page?  Like, making negative generalizations about specifically male gamers, as the kickstarter project may or may not have been intended to do?  Like, suggesting that when debating possible negative generalizations about themselves, men are not allowed to use the same reasoning as the people putting them down?  Like, suggesting men are exclusively responsible for bullying?  Like, suggesting men are conspiring with each other to keep women down?  Like, suggesting that dehumanizing men with insults, prejudicial accusations and mocking is simply respecting women and that same prejudice against women is men actually dehumanizing themselves?  Like, suggesting that especially men should be responsible for protecting specifically women from exclusively male bullies?

That "misandry thing?"

Fuck referencing each one individually, just read them all:
http://jeenyusatwerk.blogspot.com/2013/07/what-is-prejudice.html
...But none of that stuff is the issue right now.  The issue right now is the bullying and abuse and harassment that she's facing...
That depends on what kind of history her statements have had so far, actually.  If she's a reasonable person, who makes rational judgments of things instead of simply throwing blame at demographics, she certainly doesn't deserve such treatment.  However, if she is as sexist as this guy, attempting to fault people for things based on what gender they are, I can totally understand why she might be harassed when asking for money to do presumably the same thing again.
...regardless of your political position on (funny face and mocking finger quotes ->) "misandry and men's rights and blablablablabla."
Condescending, much?  Men have just as much right to have rights as any other demographic.  You may not agree with some people about what those specific rights should or shouldn't be for each demographic, but the very issue of a human being having rights is not one worthy of mockery, regardless of what their genitals may look like.
This kind of abuse and harassment matters and when it happens in our corner of the internet we need to treat it like it matters.
I agree, even though you just contradicted your mocking stance on the subject of misandry.  Misandry is the same kind of abuse as misogyny, in case you weren't aware.
We need to speak up and let them know we're not impressed by how edgy and fearless they are.
Again, I agree.  Which is why I post things like this.  I know I'm likely to get harassed for it, but unless somebody can point out where I'm making prejudicial comments in response to your prejudicial comments, the haters can just fuck off.
If you are a dude on the internet and you see other dudes in your scene harassing women (or transgender people, or anyone else who's outside of our privileged little corner of the gender spectrum) we need to speak up!
Again, blatant sexism.  Those poor women (and trans and blablablablabla) need our protection!  They need to be able to say what they want without some mean ol' men being mean to them!  Seriously, The level of benevolent misogyny this guy is displaying is as disgusting as the hostile misandry.  And I hope I don't need to revisit the subject of gender privilege again for you. 
We need to add some extra humanity into our scene to counteract their detachment from their humanity.
You mean, after dehumanizing other people in online discussions, you find the "humanity" coming from others to be lacking in online discussions?  I'd never have guessed! /sarcasm



So really, if any of my commentary makes any prejudicial statements about any demographic, be it gender, gamer, etc. feel free to point it out.  You have a whole list of offenses to choose from.  Feel free to suggest improvements to that list there as well, as long as they're constructive and aren't simply petty attempts to be difficult, because you're pissed off, but lack the ability to argue intelligently.

However, I suspect that in order to be legitimately accused of prejudicial statements about a demographic, I would first have to make a statement about a demographic and since I believe I have debated this entire piece of crap video without making a single judgement about any person or group based on any demographic feature (including voluntary demographics, such as chosen ideology labels) this may simply prove that you can debate prejudice and piss people off plenty without also being a bigot like that guy.



Is this the type of "bullying" he's talking about, I wonder?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGAvjwQPCHE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_O1R7Zq9EI

7/06/2013

White/Male Privilege™

The Knapsack Isn't Invisible, But Imaginary.


One of the most common "social justice" byproducts I see these days is the popularization and even glorification of the idea of a universal White/Male Privilege™  In fact, it's such a commonly promoted idea that it has even permeated the general culture.  It seems any time anybody is discussing gender issues of any kind, either the entire phrase, or sometimes just the word "privilege" is flung at the person not being belligerent in favor of women.  I would say "women and people of color" except that despite the fervent insistence about "equal rights for women and people of color, etc. etc." I don't see the popculture "social justice" narrative actually fighting for people of color (or any of the etc.) unless they're women who just happen to coincidentally be of color.  Let's face it, "color" is a token demographic in the popculture "social justice" narrative, used to boost support and provide a convenient increase in "victimhood" for the cause, but ultimately ignored until it's time to trot them out and shame some "white male" into submission.

Of course, one could say, "well, white males as a demographic do tend to have things better than other demographics, don't they?"  And my answer would be, yes - if you look at the statistics, whites and males do tend to be better off than other demographics in some ways.  However, not only do the facts show the opposite of what this White/Male Privilege™ claim suggests in some cases, but even when the aggregate is truthfully represented in favor of whites or males, it is being applied not as a statistical concept, but as an absolute, even toward individuals.

Now, if somebody wants to argue statistics and such, they can go right ahead and argue with somebody else who's interested in doing so.  I'm not much concerned with trying to quantify any demographic for petty reasons myself, since it will tell me nothing useful about any particular person within that demographic.  Generally, I'm not going to bother addressing statistics other than to disprove ridiculous claims.  The dog I do have in this fight is that people (of any type) deserve the dignity of basic personhood.  "Social justice" advocates are simply trying to use generalizations, even sometimes blatantly false ones, to shame people who haven't necessarily done anything wrong and belittle people based on things which do not necessarily apply to them.

So let's examine this idea with some intellectual rigor, shall we?

I'm going to grab the checklists from an article I've often seen referenced as basically the definitive resource for explaining what this concept means and we'll take a real, honest look at some of the claims made, to determine whether they are valid "privileges" which can be applied universally, or are just claims made when trying to shame and silence a person or persons from certain demographics.  I'm not going to bother with all of them, because, quite frankly, I'm just not that interested in wasting my time to that extent on debating things which somebody wrote to encourage the hatred of other people.  If a sampling isn't enough to be convincing - if there's something in particular that I skip over and you really think is more valid and absolute than the rest and I should address specifically, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

"How am I going to determine if the claims made are just prejudice" you may ask?  Well, if you'll take a look over to the right side of this blog, you'll see a list of "reference pages" and on that list is a link to one called "What Is Prejudice?"  That's what I will reference when determining the value (or bigotry) of these claims.

http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/modern/WhitePrivilege-MalePrivilege.html

Since the White Privilege™ and Male Privilege™ lists aren't exactly the same, I'm going to combine some of the like items and expand the focus of others.  Some things are basically repeats and others could theoretically apply to both race and gender, but aren't present on both lists.


I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race (or gender) most of the time.
http://www.curves.com/about-curves/
http://www.blackpeoplemeet.com/

So, apparently, it would seem that if having spaces designated specifically for one's own demographic is in fact a White/Male Privilege™ it is not an exclusively "white" or "male" form of "privilege."  Seeing as the complaints are about a particular demographic, when it seems other demographics which have these same types of "privilege" are not subjected to these same types of complaints, that suggests even if it is true, UT1 and UT2 from the prejudice reference list are being used against "whites" and "males."

However, there is evidence,

http://www.whitepeoplemeet.com/
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/05/16/reverse-sexism-at-simon-fraser/

to suggest this can actually be a difficulty for average whites and/or males, to achieve in reality.

Therefore, I'm going to have to say it's a possible UPJ2,4, UGJ4 and UAS1,2,3 as well.


I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race. (or gender)
I can be casual about whether or not to listen to another person's voice in a group in which they are the only member of their race. (or gender)
I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance or feared.
If I declare there is a racial (or gender) issue at hand, or there isn't a racial (or gender) issue at hand, my race (or gender) will lend me more credibility for either position than a person of color (or a woman) will have.
My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races. (or genders)
I can arrange my activities so that I will never have to experience feelings of rejection owing to my race. (or gender)
I will feel welcomed and "normal" in the usual walks of public life, institutional and social.
I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex (or race) on trial.
Now, I hope I don't have to actually point it out for anybody to pick up the irony, but the fact that this very White/Male Privilege™ accusation is so often and so casually used as a method to shame a person and discount their position, perspective, or value, negates itself in the case of exactly every single one of those claims.

UPJ4 and UGJ4


If I'm a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are so low as to be negligible.
If I am heterosexual, it's incredibly unlikely that I'll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover.
Oh really?
I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called "crime" and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called "domestic violence" or "acquaintance rape," and is seen as a special interest issue.)

For this one, I'll just refer to the Is "Gendered" Crime Really Gendered? post.

Mostly to women?  UPJ4 and UGJ4
Special interest?  You betcha.


I am not taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/cv08.txt
Characteristics of victims of violent crimes measured by the NCVS in 2008 were similar to previous years. Males, blacks, and persons age 24 or younger experienced violent victimizations at higher or somewhat higher rates than females, whites, and persons age 25 or older.
Male victims knew the offenders in half of all aggravated and simple assaults against them. Female victims knew the offenders in approximately 70% of assaults against them.
Violent crimes measured by the NCVS include rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.


http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/cv09.txt
Violence against males, blacks, and persons age 24 or younger occurred at higher or somewhat higher rates than the rates of violence against females, whites, and persons age 25 or older in 2009.
Females knew their offenders in almost 70% of violent crimes committed against them; males knew their offenders in 45% of violent crimes committed against them.
Violent crimes measured by the NCVS include rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.


http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/cv10.txt
Males (15.7 per 1,000) and females (14.2 per 1,000) had similar rates of violent victimization during 2010
Females knew their offenders in 64% of violent victimizations committed against them, and males knew their offenders in 40% of violent victimizations against them.
The NCVS measures the violent crimes of rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.


Is the real problem that the less commonly victimized race/gender is taught to be cautious, or that the more commonly victimized race/gender isn't?  If it's the former, all you need to do is tell whites, women and people 25 or older that they are on the less statistically likely side of an average 1.5% per year violent crime victimization rate.  Incidentally, if encouraging paranoia about violent crime is a "discrimination" against the demographic less likely to experience it, then it is likely blacks which have the "privilege" in this case. (or, UPJ4 and UGJ4)


Chances are my elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20231337
US election: Women are the new majority

UPJ4 and UGJ4 
I can be somewhat sure that if I ask to see "the person in charge," I will face a person of my own sex.
Actually, in case you haven't heard, women are the majority of managers these days and women under 30 make more money than their male peers.  If you don't believe me, ask Hanna Rosin. (the radical feminist)
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/

UPJ4 and UGJ4 
The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more likely this is to be true.
The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.
These are also known as the "most CEOs are white men" claim and are intended to suggest that being the same race or gender as somebody in power automatically grants a person some form of, or access to that power, or that the power in question automatically serves that person's interests.  If you need an example of why such a thing is not necessarily the case, Google "Sarah Palin abortion" or "Marsha Blackburn equal pay" or "Jodie Laubenberg rape kit."

UPJ1,2,3 and UGJ1,2,3

Tell ya what... How about we address the "wage gap" as well while we're in the neighborhood?






My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female (or colored) applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.
and 
I can be confident that my co-workers won't think I got my job because of my sex (or race) - even though that might be true.
Now, those are from the same list, in positions #1 and #2.  Is it just me, or do those actually seem to contradict each other?  I mean, in #1 the suggestion is "you probably got that job, just because you're male/white" (UPJ2,3 and UGJ3) and #2 is suggesting "people won't think you probably got that job, just because you're male/white." (UPJ4 and UGJ4)

And that's without even considering that there are programs which by design, provide incentives for employers to hire the non-white and/or non-male applicant if there are two people of different demographics competing for the same job.


As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children's media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex.
http://comicsbeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/he-man.jpg
http://inadawords.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/wolverine.jpg
http://www.metropolisplus.com/superman/SupermanJLBColorWeb.jpg
http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/AquamanSideburns.jpg

Almost infinite variety?
Non-stereotyped?
UPJ4 and UGJ4


Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are much rarer.
Objectification of men is rare?  Let's just see about that...

Old Spice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLTIowBF0kE
("Hello ladies. Does your man look like me?")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owGykVbfgUE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8IW78vJecg
http://s0.2mdn.net/viewad/1260678/300x250_drugstore.jpg

Dolce&Gabbana:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLrUJY4D5Bc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-xavhxWT6U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG_iKM5WYJM

Giorgio Armani
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKvBniPPCcQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep16cm9fL9Q

Davidoff Cool Water
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQcax8yjvtM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd0BAKedJog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXn2fQ-8rwk
(Top Comments: "I think i just came..." and "HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!" - but I'm sure Paul Walker is really being appreciated for his mind, right?)

Levi's 501:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RKp1P2S2qs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaqcthqw5Tg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdaKNHWi1SQ

Lee Jeans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgTBx2Sgmp4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6n0-340ze8

Bod:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAOSPZsN8fs ("Nice BOD")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8zQnSMPB34 ("Tight BOD")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZspUyvG-ZA ("Hot BOD")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iba14hfPVkg ("I want your BOD")

Netflix:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oebmm0CQlvk
("My, you are a little biscuit! Show - don't tell.")

Pom Wonderful:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5307404/pom_wonderful_warrior_tv_commercial/

I can't believe it's not butter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xszIaNpYILY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg52V_bOIuY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4fxTScyrQM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_5pb3nx4y0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUHE7t-WrK4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPbRTSA_y_A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksSU8eKDK5s

Max Tall:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lREErGZTW3U
("Poor Mike is 5'9" and Cindy isn't paying attention to him at all, but with Max Tall in his shoes Mike is nearly 6' tall and Cindy likes what she sees.")

Zoosk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzGvESR4erc

Micro Touch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP-tEmXhSUo
("...or remove it all and show off that hard body.  What a great way for women to keep the man in their life perfectly groomed.")

Nationwide Insurance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdyLiTvEFPo

State Farm Insurance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eo8Q60dLHc

Live Links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dI8mZIjQRg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_enl4ox5CU

Twilight:
http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/TWILIGHT_c868ce_289254.jpg

Magic Mike:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHGJ7n_S0Wk
"Ohhhhhhhh myyyyy goshhhh ------------------- #Tatum #perfect"
"Yes please. EEK!"
"Hot damn... Woof"
"i would fuck them guyes brain out"
"woah baby i'd let channing tatum strip for me anytime and where"
"I saw this movie with my girls and gay guy friends and I must say we all needed a cold shower after this. Especially when the pony dance happened!"
(Those comments must all refer to the acting talent displayed, right?)

For Objectification's Sake:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jennaguillaume/can-you-make-it-through-this-post-without-your-ovaries-explo

But this is a brand new thing, because the playing field is finally just now starting to level, right?  Men didn't used to be shown shirtless and dripping wet all the time to sell products...

Aqua Velva:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUPkQot0uhg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rsbl82XDrk
("It just feels better with an Aqua Velva man.")

Zest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcOqDJenTAw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVIdJDmf424
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7LHVSoC57U

Coast:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR2oSABais4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QvAUggPotU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4E9CRrK4A0

Irish Spring:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-Cy9YYnnC8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbhOGDhhWNQ

and here's a couple even from the 1960s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXNqveciUIA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVCx5a7Ns8o

UPJ4 and UGJ4



If you actually managed to make it all the way here, I hope you're sick of reading by now, because I'm done writing for the moment.  I will, however, leave you with the very last list item: 
I have the privilege of being unaware of my (white) male privilege.
Which simply means, "disagreeing with me is all the proof I need."

The moral of this story?  White/Male Privilege™ (or any other malicious generalization of people) is simple prejudice at best and dishonest, harmful, even blatant hate speech at worst.  If you use such language in an attempt to shame and silence somebody, you are not fighting bigotry, you are perpetuating bigotry.

Looking forward to the hate mail...